mapp v. ohio
Year: 1961
Result: 6-3, favor Mapp
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 4th Amendment (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled for Mapp based on the exclusionary rule. under the 4th Amendment, "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." The evidence seized from Mapp was obtained unlawfully (without a warrant) and so promoting due process, the Supreme Court ruled it could not be used in a trial against her.
Quote from majority opinion: "Finally, the Court in that case clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved "a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused...in a federal prosecution, the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure."
Summary of dissent: The exclusionary rule under the 4th Amendment was not incorporated to the states. The decision made by the Court delved into an issue that had had a precedent set fifty years ago in the Wolf decision. Mapp's possession of the illicit and illegal substances should have been the main focus of the trial.
6-word summary: exclusionary rule: search and seizures incorporated
Result: 6-3, favor Mapp
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 4th Amendment (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled for Mapp based on the exclusionary rule. under the 4th Amendment, "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." The evidence seized from Mapp was obtained unlawfully (without a warrant) and so promoting due process, the Supreme Court ruled it could not be used in a trial against her.
Quote from majority opinion: "Finally, the Court in that case clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved "a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused...in a federal prosecution, the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure."
Summary of dissent: The exclusionary rule under the 4th Amendment was not incorporated to the states. The decision made by the Court delved into an issue that had had a precedent set fifty years ago in the Wolf decision. Mapp's possession of the illicit and illegal substances should have been the main focus of the trial.
6-word summary: exclusionary rule: search and seizures incorporated